Georgia DA investigating Trump closer to decision on charges

I agree. Thanks for a response unrelated to my post.

 

Just staying On topic.

 

Then kindly do it with a post that you think is on topic. Inserting unrelated opinions into my post is just a waste of time. I'm happy to respond to your criticism of me but do it with criticism of what I actually said.

 

Liberty is one of American's core values, which include

liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, unity, and diversity.

 

You are not forced to respond to anyone. trump running again has nothing at all to do with the investigation into the 2020 phone call to get the Ga SoS to find 1 more vote than needed to give him the win. No matter how he has to find them.

 

Thanks for expanding the definition. Individualism, unity and diversity work counter to each other, however. Democracy is just a way of choosing leaders. Plato had a good system as well for choosing leaders. You can find it in his "Republic." I agree with liberty and equality.

 

Well, I listened to Trump's speech leading to 6th Jan and 98% was irrelevant dribble. The important part highlighted that it wasn't an insurrection.

So I'm a little hesitant to endure a 2 hour Trump phone call if a tiny percentage is of any relevance. I'm not saying that it's not a priority to listen to it, it's just that, it's low down on my list of priorities. The reason why, no offence, what the Left claim seems to bear no resemblance to reality.

So if you feel there's a part of the phone call that breeches the law, then point that out and I'll listen to it.

 

Sounds good.. it's only an hour call, although it felt like 2. I dont remember where in the conversation he criminally solicited BR to find votes while mentioning criminal action if he didnt, so maybe you'd be better off searching the transcript...

 

They think he is a threat to democracy and that democracy might put him back in office. So he must be stopped.

 

So, if you have a valid election and you don't accept the winning president as your president, is that a threat to democracy?

 

$50 he never sees prison?

 

Trump tried to REVERSE the election. He is a threat to democracy. There probably is no greater threat to democracy than Trump and his followers. They are already looking for ways to overturn local elections if he or his puppet loses the next election. That's what people who actually care about democracy want to stop by exposing this corruption. No one who still supports Trump actually cares about democracy. In fact, I'm not sure you can support him anymore without either 1) being the most gullible kind of conspiracy theorist imaginable or 2) being openly antagonistic toward democratic elections. Those are the only remaining options.

 

I use 'democracy' in the 'liberal democracy' sense, which embodies all of those values.

America is a liberal democracy, which means that it is its core value, the embodiment of all of those things.

 

Bi-Partisan meaning Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump or Rep Anti-Trump and Dem Anti-Trump. He didn't solicit anything he asked for an investigation into voter fraud.

 

Then we disagree agin.

 

He's been pretty good at avoiding jail, so, I won't take that bet.

 

I base my opinion on the encyclopedia:

At a minimum, liberal democracy is characterized by the following:

1. Widespread political participation by adult citizens, including members of minority groups that include racial, ethnic, religious, linguistic, and economic minorities;
2. Secret ballots and frequent regular elections;
3. Broad freedom of individuals to form and support political parties, with each party free to present its views and form a government;
4. Governments that can alter, interpret, and enforce laws to suit (within limits) the majority's preferences;
5. Effective guarantees of individual and minority rights, especially in areas such as freedom of speech, press, conscience, religion, assembly, and equal treatment before the law; and
6. Limited governmental powers, which are kept in check by constitutional guarantees including separation of powers (so that all executive, legislative, and judicial powers are not, in effect, exercised by the same person or institution).

Because of the importance of rights guarantees and limitations on power, liberal democracy is often understood to be synonymous with constitutional democracy. Constitutional guarantees can take the form of widely shared and practiced understandings or formal written rules.

The phrase liberal democracy also points to something beyond government. It is a way of describing a kind of culture or civil society, including economy and lifestyle, which is as much a necessary condition of liberal democracy as it is a product of it. In addition to the governmental norms, liberal democracy is characterized by cooperative, consensual relationships among individuals and groups on a broad range of matters that extend beyond politics or government. Voluntary exchange and social interaction, along with confidence or trust on the part of people to engage in such interaction with those otherwise unknown to them, are essential elements and preconditions of liberal democracy.

"Freedom" in other words.

 

That doesn't support what you said. Your post was filled with partisanship. The encyclopedia disagrees with you as well.

 

Most certainly does.

America IS a liberal democracy.

If that is what it is, and that IS what it is, then the fact that liberal democracy is it's core value is inescapable,

 

From nonsense cries of "whataboutism" to laughable attempts to diminish this super-star darling of the far-left. Just admit it. The only thing you find objectionable about challenging elections is that a Republican did it. Just come out and admit it man.

 

A super star hero most never heard of. LOL.
Your Abrams deflection is the whataboutism.

 

Quantify "most never heard of". And the dozens of Democrats who rallied objections during the 2017 Congressional EC ratification vote in an attempt to stop it, I guess "most never heard of" them either, yes? Because the premise here, which I'm sarcastically mocking just so we're clear, is that a thing is only wrong if the person doing it has a certain number of twitter followers... right?

 

I've done that already in 2 posts. 90% never heard of her outside of Ga. Most of America doesn't pay attention to politics and certainly not in some other state.

I am not sarcastically mocking you, it's real. As you've been flailing for a while now..
You even had to deflect to some gov election is a southern state to a person most never heard of.

 

You're hung up on something that only you think is valid, but its not. It doesn't matter how known someone is, any election can be challenged in America. All candidates, be they for lowly little county offices or all the way up to the darn President, have the right to challenge the results.You're all bent out of shape because Trump did it, yet you give a pass to Abrams, not to mention past Presidential elections that Democrats have contested including the 2016 one where dozens of Dems tried to stop the 2017 EC ratification vote. So here is is my final question for you, and the only topic I'll be interested in responding to further: Why, in your opinion, is it only permissible for Democrats to challenge results?

 

The point I am making, and it's been flying over your head for several posts now, is you whined about whataboutism.
Meanwhile you 1st resorted to whataboutism with a person hardly anyone outside of GA has heard about.